Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Core 2 Duo E6750 or Athlon 64 X2 6000+?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
September 23, 2007 6:37:50 PM

i'm at the crossroads here people. so close when it comes to pricing but which is the better buy?

Tom's CPU chart clearly favors the 6750 but i'm thinking with the 6000+ running at 3GHz, instead of 2.66GHz, it will be faster for gaming?
And i'm not talking Solitaire people, more like Oblivion, S.T.A.L.K.E.R. and Crysis. I need to improve my min FPS to 40. My current Athlon 64 3500+ only gives 20+ FPS. :( 
Plus we're talking bout the fastest mainstream CPU from AMD here, shouldn't that say something? or does the Core 2 Duo really kicks 64 X2's ass?

I'll be gettin a new mobo and a Kingston HyperX 2x1gb pc6400 kit.
I'm sticking with my current Galaxy 7900 GS 256MB 540 MHz/1500 MHz since i couldn't care less bout DX10, for now anyway, since its too freakin' expensive! Not now but the 8800GTX 768mb or the 2900XT 512mb is definitely down the road. Plus i only play at 1280*1024, so the 7900 GS should suffice, it's just that i haven't been able to push it to its max with my crappy 3500+

I ain't rich, so wat i do is upgrade my system partially, just enough to play the current games.

Please advise this confused soul.



September 23, 2007 6:40:16 PM

Are you willing to overclock?

Of the twoI would definatly get the E6750
a c 125 à CPUs
September 23, 2007 6:59:30 PM

e6750
Related resources
a b à CPUs
September 23, 2007 7:01:39 PM

Quote:
or does the Core 2 Duo really kicks 64 X2's ass?


Well, no offense, but the fact that the core 2 chips are kicking AMDs ass has been the biggest tech story of the last year. They kick em clock for clock and they also overclock much higher. No contest. Just read the tech sites a little longer before you pull the trigger.

The only thing to say in AMDs favor is that they have lowered prices to the point that $ for $ they are competitve, unless you are going to OC, in which case they fall way behind in price/performance too.

I know, AMD was the performance king for so long that it's kind of hard to believe the tables have turned, but turned the tables have.
a b à CPUs
September 23, 2007 7:05:30 PM

E6750 > E6600 > X2 6000

E6600 and X2 600 perform closely to each other , but E6600 wins almost in every app/game

It isnt even a bit imporatn if u are going to OC or not , because E6750 wins X2 6000 in every benchmark and also it OC's alot better than X2 6000 too , so definitely go for E6750

7900GS is a good card for 1280x1024 , but i couldnt Play DIRT and LOST PLANET : EXTREME condtion maxed out with my 7900GTX 512 , i had to lower down some settings
September 23, 2007 9:44:12 PM

Is there any reason you are spending extra money on the overpriced Kingston ram when you could buy generic DDR800 and not notice a bit of difference... assuming it works at all.
September 23, 2007 9:44:39 PM

Is there any reason you are spending extra money on the overpriced Kingston ram when you could buy generic DDR800 and not notice a bit of difference... assuming it works at all.
September 24, 2007 8:19:15 PM

djcoolmasterx said:
Are you willing to overclock?

Of the twoI would definatly get the E6750


Nope, i'm not savvy or gutsy enough for that. stock speed suffices.

E6750, huh? predictable. :) 
September 24, 2007 8:27:19 PM

notherdude said:
Quote:
or does the Core 2 Duo really kicks 64 X2's ass?


Well, no offense, but the fact that the core 2 chips are kicking AMDs ass has been the biggest tech story of the last year. They kick em clock for clock and they also overclock much higher. No contest. Just read the tech sites a little longer before you pull the trigger.

The only thing to say in AMDs favor is that they have lowered prices to the point that $ for $ they are competitve, unless you are going to OC, in which case they fall way behind in price/performance too.

I know, AMD was the performance king for so long that it's kind of hard to believe the tables have turned, but turned the tables have.


none taken. it's just that i have a soft spot for AMD. i remember seeing the AMD Athlon 64Bit X2 4400+ in late `06 and it was pricey. wanted one n now that i can afford one, there's a AMD Athlon 64Bit X2 6000+ for a much, much lower price!!!

Plus the 3GHz vs. 2.66GHZ thingy but yeah,... i know bout the benchmarks.
September 24, 2007 8:40:48 PM

Maziar said:
E6750 > E6600 > X2 6000

E6600 and X2 600 perform closely to each other , but E6600 wins almost in every app/game

It isnt even a bit imporatn if u are going to OC or not , because E6750 wins X2 6000 in every benchmark and also it OC's alot better than X2 6000 too , so definitely go for E6750

7900GS is a good card for 1280x1024 , but i couldnt Play DIRT and LOST PLANET : EXTREME condtion maxed out with my 7900GTX 512 , i had to lower down some settings


thanks for the info man. actually wanted the E6600 earlier this year but now that we have the E6750, i feel lucky a hell? :) 

Thanks for the compliment on the 7900GS, i purposely spelled it out there hoping to see whether anyone will bad mouth it, but a praise? i'm flattered! Galaxy's was the fastest, God knows the amount of research i did for that.

Man oh man, look at your spec! (U dont work at OCZ, do you? :) ) And with that you can't play LOST PLANET? i suspect it's the whole cross-platform curse plus the dx9&10 curse. it's like whenever developers do a game befitting that profile, it'll almost certainly screw up since they never optimize for pc/DX9 people like us.

what resolution do u play neways? as if the curse isn't bad enough, playing at 2560*1600 would screw it up even more.

how bout a pc only game like S.T.A.L.K.E.R.? Surely your system will shine in a game like dat?
September 24, 2007 8:53:33 PM

little_scrapper said:
Is there any reason you are spending extra money on the overpriced Kingston ram when you could buy generic DDR800 and not notice a bit of difference... assuming it works at all.


Thank you so much for asking that. actually the HyperX was rather out of my league but i was thinking it was going to boost my FPS in a game like S.T.A.L.K.E.R.

So, i'm wrong? Should i just get two 1GB sticks of the Kingston Value Series RAM? THe dual channel thing will work then, right? BUt even so, wat bout the whole Cas n latency timing thingy? The HyperX KHX6400D2LLK2/2GN runs at 4-4-4-12, isn't that suppose to mean something like...i dunno, faster performance?

Negligible. That's wat you're telling me? The difference between two sticks of Value Series and the HyperX is only like 20 bucks, so it is worth it, right?

"...assuming it works at all." Dont get this part, care to elaborate?
September 24, 2007 9:12:34 PM

I have the E6750 and get great FPS. Remember that the clock speed isn't everything too.

You may want to check out the deals at newegg and mwave and frys. I bought 2 x 1GB of low latency Crucial ram for $70 total. It's really good ram and was way cheap.

Hope your build turns out good for you and you get the boost you're looking for.

E6750 all the way!
September 24, 2007 9:40:02 PM

huron said:
I have the E6750 and get great FPS. Remember that the clock speed isn't everything too.

You may want to check out the deals at newegg and mwave and frys. I bought 2 x 1GB of low latency Crucial ram for $70 total. It's really good ram and was way cheap.

Hope your build turns out good for you and you get the boost you're looking for.

E6750 all the way!


thank u for that. the FPS boost was wat i was hoping for. what's your latency on the Crucial? looks like a good deal. the HyperX is pricey at a latency of 4-4-4-12.
September 24, 2007 10:17:21 PM

Definatley get the E6750 its not contest. Also I would try and get rid of that softspot you may have for any company to make decisions like this easier on you. lol, and also I put some memory suggestions here if you were still thinking in going a different direction. The g. skill i linked are the models you see in my sig. Hope this helps.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

Best,

3Ball
September 24, 2007 10:39:21 PM

Quote:
I will be the odd man out here and say go with the 6000+ you wont be disapointed. I play Crysis beta with maximum settings at 1920 x 1200 with a GTS 640 mb card and get 25 to 40 fps. Yeh if you get the 6750 and overclock it it will beat it, but for $169 on newegg.com youll have an excellent Cpu and will do current games justice! AMD all the way!


If the price difference meant him being able to get your graphics card as well instead of his 7900GS then I would agree with you about saying to get it, but since it doesnt I am going to have to let the OP know that...true you may not be disappointed with performance over your 3500+, but you will be disappointed that you didnt get the fastest possible solution, that runs cooler, and uses less power when you could have. IMO. This is true even without overclocking, the overclocking bonus of the C2D is just another plus for the arch.

Best,

3Ball
September 24, 2007 11:07:21 PM

vasanx said:
i'm at the crossroads here people. so close when it comes to pricing but which is the better buy?

Tom's CPU chart clearly favors the 6750 but i'm thinking with the 6000+ running at 3GHz, instead of 2.66GHz, it will be faster for gaming?
And i'm not talking Solitaire people, more like Oblivion, S.T.A.L.K.E.R. and Crysis. I need to improve my min FPS to 40. My current Athlon 64 3500+ only gives 20+ FPS. :( 
Plus we're talking bout the fastest mainstream CPU from AMD here, shouldn't that say something? or does the Core 2 Duo really kicks 64 X2's ass?

I'll be gettin a new mobo and a Kingston HyperX 2x1gb pc6400 kit.
I'm sticking with my current Galaxy 7900 GS 256MB 540 MHz/1500 MHz since i couldn't care less bout DX10, for now anyway, since its too freakin' expensive! Not now but the 8800GTX 768mb or the 2900XT 512mb is definitely down the road. Plus i only play at 1280*1024, so the 7900 GS should suffice, it's just that i haven't been able to push it to its max with my crappy 3500+

I ain't rich, so wat i do is upgrade my system partially, just enough to play the current games.

Please advise this confused soul.

Spend that money on a good GPU for your amd 64 3500+ or go quad. A high priced dual core is a waste due to cheap quads. A low end dual core is a waste as your 3500+ is higher clocked and may win in single threaded games.

Point is going from your 7900 gs to X1950xt would give a bigger boost at 1280*1024 than any dual core on average. Fact is the GPU is king in gaming. The 8800GTS 320mb would make a bigger differance in games than the highest OC'ed quad with your 7900GS. The only thing is with a quad your at least set for the future.
September 24, 2007 11:35:18 PM

E6750, the 6000+ gets beat most of the time by the lower clocked E6600, and the LGA775 Mobos will also let you upgrade to Yorksfields and Wolfdales later. AM2 is getting to be a dead socket, though not really since AM2+ is backwards compatible, at cost of HT speed.
September 25, 2007 1:10:26 AM

LGA 775 is a dead socket, not AM2. Intel has changed the chipsets for LGA 775 so many times no one knows for sure if their motherboard will work with a particular CPU. AMD on the other hand has designed AM2 to be scalable from low-end Semprons right up to Phenom X4's (and maybe higher).

As for AM2+, the lack of support for HTT 3.0 in AM2 motherboards is a non-issue as AM2 processors have plenty of bandwidth with HTT 2.0 . The only thing AM2+ CPUs in AM2 motherboards will lack is support for split power planes and DDR2-1066. This won't affect performance much at all.
September 25, 2007 2:21:54 AM

"Tom's CPU chart clearly favors the 6750 but i'm thinking with the 6000+ running at 3GHz, instead of 2.66GHz, it will be faster for gaming?"

So you plan on OC'ing the AMD but not the Intel...for why? I'd go for the Intel because of the aforementioned reasons :)  Plus if you OC the Intel to the same 3GHz, you'll have that much more performance over the 6000+.
September 25, 2007 5:11:52 AM

3Ball said:
Definatley get the E6750 its not contest. Also I would try and get rid of that softspot you may have for any company to make decisions like this easier on you. lol, and also I put some memory suggestions here if you were still thinking in going a different direction. The g. skill i linked are the models you see in my sig. Hope this helps.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

Best,

3Ball


thanks for the wake up call. the g skills looks nice, too bad they dont sell it here. They got stuff like Kingstonn Mushkin but no G. Skill or Patriot Extreme (Only the Twin PAtriot), plus i'm not in the good ol' US of A to enjoy newegg. :( 
BUt thanks neways.
September 25, 2007 6:16:34 AM

you want to improve your FPS? forget the core 2 duo, get the fastest video card you afford, 8800GTS type thing
September 25, 2007 6:17:51 AM

why why
do i post the same question every other day it seems!

i give up just buy the amd and be sorry! enough said!


this same post was not 2 days ago with the same title - the same title and same question

buy intel and be intelligent
buy amd and be average
a b à CPUs
September 25, 2007 7:41:19 AM

bitrate said:
LGA 775 is a dead socket, not AM2. Intel has changed the chipsets for LGA 775 so many times no one knows for sure if their motherboard will work with a particular CPU.

Intel has changed the chipset, who cares? That has nothing to do with the socket. The "socket" (it isn't actually a socket) is still exactly the same, it has been since the pentium years. AMD is changing the sockets around quite a bit, even if they are backwards compatible that is beside the point.
September 25, 2007 5:59:52 PM

who cares? so what itf its the same socket. that dont mean jack if the new cpus that come out wont work in the older boards/chipsets with the same socket.

so what its the same socket as the pentium years. those old boards dont support core2s or anything else coming out that is 775. maybe its besides the point if you're using cpus and mobos to build lego houses or something
September 25, 2007 6:56:24 PM

What matters is price /performance depending on what particular performance you require.

If you are an avid gamer, then the high end Intel is a good choice.
If you work with video streaming a great deal, mid-range Intel.
If you surf the net and play DVDs, then almost any AMD will do.
If you game but not bleeding edge,the X2 6000 will be fine.
If you are an Intel fanboy, then get the Intel by all means.
a b à CPUs
September 25, 2007 7:15:38 PM

vasanx said:
thanks for the info man. actually wanted the E6600 earlier this year but now that we have the E6750, i feel lucky a hell? :) 

Thanks for the compliment on the 7900GS, i purposely spelled it out there hoping to see whether anyone will bad mouth it, but a praise? i'm flattered! Galaxy's was the fastest, God knows the amount of research i did for that.

Man oh man, look at your spec! (U dont work at OCZ, do you? :) ) And with that you can't play LOST PLANET? i suspect it's the whole cross-platform curse plus the dx9&10 curse. it's like whenever developers do a game befitting that profile, it'll almost certainly screw up since they never optimize for pc/DX9 people like us.

what resolution do u play neways? as if the curse isn't bad enough, playing at 2560*1600 would screw it up even more.

how bout a pc only game like S.T.A.L.K.E.R.? Surely your system will shine in a game like dat?


lol i love OCZ , its a very good and reliable brand , also i said i couldnt play LOSTPLANET with my 7900GTX 512 with everything maxed out , i had to lower some settings ( i play @ 1280x1024) . but when i upgraded to 8800GTX i play it with ease with everything maxed out , other games like S.T.A.L.K.E.R , BF2142 , GRAW2 ,MOH:AIR BORNE,BIOSHOCK ... runs smoothly maxed out
September 25, 2007 8:05:43 PM

I think from his first post he does what we do and upgrade in parts shifting PC parts between our Pc's and getting new as and when.
Just couple of months ago got AMD 5600x2 with a cheap board, value 2 gig of memory and cheapest 8600GT card. Runs all the new games ok at 1280X1024. Only thing really holding it back is the graphics card which will be swapped for a better one at some point way in the future to give it a last burst of new life. At the time we got it the next real step up in graphics card was like £100 more, which is a big jump when your on a budget to have a few pc's all usable to play games.
September 25, 2007 8:30:48 PM

I would go with the 6000+, not bc it'll be the C2D, cuz it wont. But bc the platform is way more future proof. It's cheaper, the cpu AND the mobo. Everytime intel changes something you get a new chipset. When AMD makes changes you get a Bios update at the most. I belive phenom will take a slight lead for a short time as well.
a b à CPUs
September 26, 2007 12:34:45 AM

andyahunt said:
I would go with the 6000+, not bc it'll be the C2D, cuz it wont. But bc the platform is way more future proof. It's cheaper, the cpu AND the mobo. Everytime intel changes something you get a new chipset. When AMD makes changes you get a Bios update at the most. I belive phenom will take a slight lead for a short time as well.


What planet are you on? AM2 is dead, AM2+ is the next slot (required upgrade to use new speeds) then AM3 (the next FORCED motherboard upgrade-those cpus will NOT work on older boards). That's called dead-end boards. X2 6000+ is a JOKE compared to a E6750, Even the E6600 or a overclocked far slower X2 is faster. There is NOTHING that comes close to Intel right now. The 775 board has been around for a very long time. Quite the opposite back in the Socket A, socket 370,423,478 days. And Intel is NOT going to allow AMD back to #1 if they can help it. Future proof is INTEL NOT AMD right now. Intel acts like the old AMD and AMD acts like the old Intel now. And with the Intel E6750 not much more then a E6000+, the Obvious choice is the E6750 hands down.
AMD will have to change back to the old AMD to compete. But with their road map, that's NOT the case. looks like a very long haul before they come even close again....not good.
September 26, 2007 1:05:34 AM

The Core 2 Duo's are newer tech than the AMD design, AMD's processer design is older than Intel's Core 2's. Now AMD has to play catch up with Intel, AMD is fighting to keep up with Intel. Its a fact not my opinion.
September 26, 2007 3:07:39 AM

elbert said:
Spend that money on a good GPU for your amd 64 3500+ or go quad. A high priced dual core is a waste due to cheap quads. A low end dual core is a waste as your 3500+ is higher clocked and may win in single threaded games.

Point is going from your 7900 gs to X1950xt would give a bigger boost at 1280*1024 than any dual core on average. Fact is the GPU is king in gaming. The 8800GTS 320mb would make a bigger differance in games than the highest OC'ed quad with your 7900GS. The only thing is with a quad your at least set for the future.


you got me thinking if i should just use up all that money to get a Asus 8800GTS 320MB DDR3. BUt wouldn't that stil make the Athlon 64 3500+ as the bottleneck since at the end of the day it's still the cpu that does all the calculation.

I remember facing the same dillemma when i wanted to upgrade from Athlon XP 3500+ and FX5200, i wanted to change just gpu to a 7600gs but after the cpu debate i ended up with my current spec.

i'm sure i can bump up FPS because this was the benchmark i used to purchase my 7900gs over x1950 pro:

http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/digest3d/0906/itogi...

62 FPS for F.E.A.R. with AA 4x n ANIS 16x at 1280*1024 should say something bout the card, right?
and the guy's spec was:
CPU: AMD Athlon 64 X2 5000+ (2600MHz) (L2=2x512K)
Motherboard: Foxconn C51XEM2AA-8EKRS2H on NVIDIA nForce590 SLI
RAM: 2 GB DDR2 SDRAM 667MHz (CAS (tCL)=3; RAS to CAS delay (tRCD)=3; Row Precharge (tRP)=3; tRAS=6)
HDD: WD Caviar SE WD1600JD 160GB SATA

i can easily do that setup right now!

But...i'm wondering again, if should just bump the Athlon 64 3500+ to 2.7GHz since the A8N5X mobo is quite overclock-able n pair it with the aforementioned Asus 8800GTS 320MB DDR3.

Would dat be a better deal? what do you all think?



September 26, 2007 3:22:53 AM

It would be better if you spent your money on a new GPU, that would make the bigger difference gaming wise.
a b à CPUs
September 26, 2007 4:46:23 AM

albundy1 said:
who cares? so what itf its the same socket. that dont mean jack if the new cpus that come out wont work in the older boards/chipsets with the same socket.

so what its the same socket as the pentium years. those old boards dont support core2s or anything else coming out that is 775. maybe its besides the point if you're using cpus and mobos to build lego houses or something

What's your point? The fact is LGA 775 is not a dead "socket", which is what I was arguing. The fact that new CPUs don't work in older boards is irrelavent, the "socket" is still alive and well (metaphorically speaking).
September 26, 2007 5:27:32 AM

little_scrapper said:
Is there any reason you are spending extra money on the overpriced Kingston ram when you could buy generic DDR800 and not notice a bit of difference... assuming it works at all.


Belinda said:
I think from his first post he does what we do and upgrade in parts shifting PC parts between our Pc's and getting new as and when.
Just couple of months ago got AMD 5600x2 with a cheap board, value 2 gig of memory and cheapest 8600GT card. Runs all the new games ok at 1280X1024. Only thing really holding it back is the graphics card which will be swapped for a better one at some point way in the future to give it a last burst of new life. At the time we got it the next real step up in graphics card was like £100 more, which is a big jump when your on a budget to have a few pc's all usable to play games.



thank you for that. for someone who's not rich i was going to buy a couple of Hyperx RAMs! how crazy am i?

Alright people, thank you so much for all the input. After much deliberation, this is wat i'm gettin:

01. Core 2 Duo E6750 Dual 2.66 4MB 1333 rm670> USD195
02. Intel P35DPM P35 16x ATX+1394+eSATA+S+L rm385> USD112
03. RAM/PATRIOT-SD2-667-2KH DDR2 667 2x1GB rm175> USD51
04. Casing/Cooler Master Elite RC-330 with 380W rm130> USD38
05. gpu replacement for current sys/Asus 7200GS 256MB DDR2 64 450 666 rm190> USD55

Comes to bout USD451. Much more befitting of a not so rich guy?

a b à CPUs
September 26, 2007 6:00:44 AM

Well, what they say is true, the core 2 duo is faster. But both these chips are extremely fast processors. You will notice more of a boost from a graphics upgrade in frames per second gaming. I would save your money for a better video card.
I just got a 7600gt ddr3 for 80 us at new egg!

why buy a shiny new proc for 200 than low ball for a crappy vid card for 55? That won't help your FPS
September 26, 2007 9:39:11 AM

A better video card will outweigh the cpu in game performance.

However, you knew that already.
September 26, 2007 5:42:28 PM

buzznut said:
Well, what they say is true, the core 2 duo is faster. But both these chips are extremely fast processors. You will notice more of a boost from a graphics upgrade in frames per second gaming. I would save your money for a better video card.
I just got a 7600gt ddr3 for 80 us at new egg!

why buy a shiny new proc for 200 than low ball for a crappy vid card for 55? That won't help your FPS


it seems that i have mislead you, the USD55 crappy card is to keep my old system floating since the nforce4 dont have integrated graphics (nvidia being nvidia, forcing you to get their graphic card). My USD200+ Galaxy Premium 7900GS (which is faster than a x1950Pro) will be shifted to the new Intel set.

I'm hoping to squeeze out every last bit of performance out the 7900gs bcoz i know i was handicapped by the Athlon 64 3500+ all this while. I could overclock, but i'm too chicken for that. :) 
June 24, 2009 1:22:09 PM

No offense guys, but AMD (in my opinion has this one.

I used to have an E6750 and "Upgraded" to the AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+, and have noticed a big difference. Of course I am running mega amounts of stuff.

I used to only build Intel based systems with ATI for vid, but for my first AMD base, compared to Intel, and I find myself asking, "Why didn't I use AMD sooner"???

I have the following specs:
AMD Athlon 64 x2 6000+ (OC'd 2.8GHz)
BioStar TA770 A2+SE
SuperTalent 2x4GB Dual Channel Kits (That's 4x2GB Chips) = 8GB RAM
MSI NVidia 9400GT 512MB Video (4094MB - 3582MB Shared)
2x 500GB Hitachi Deskstar p7k500 SATA's
2x LG DVD+/-RW w/ LightScribe SATA's
All Air Cooled (2x 120mm's 1x 80mm)
CoolerMaster Extreme Power 500Watts PSU

All of which I have no problems with, except my PSU, I pulled it from my old E6750 system, and didn't compensate for the power hungry AMD chip, so now I have to upgrade that.

But, on running underpowered with an overclock, I don't see why people would go with the Intel Chip.

Go with AMD on this one, way more overclockability, and more power won't hurt either.

:bounce:  :bounce:  :bounce:  :bounce: 
!